Forbes v Aberdeen Motors Ltd. [1965] ScotCS CSIH_1 (12 March 1965)

Forbes v Aberdeen Motors Ltd. [1965] ScotCS CSIH_1 (12 March 1965)

The defenders, as onerous custodiers, owed a duty to take reasonable care of the pursuer's car until it was safely delivered. Leaving the car unlocked with the keys in the ignition in an unsupervised car park was a breach of that duty, as no prudent person would have done so. The absence of express instructions regarding the keys did not absolve the defenders from this duty. Their negligence directly caused the loss, making them liable in damages.

Citation
[1965] ScotCS CSIH_1
Parties
Pursuer: Forbes; Defender: Aberdeen Motors Ltd
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
12 March 1965
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion)
Outcome
appeal dismissed; judgment for pursuer affirmed
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Negligence, Custody of Goods, Standard of Care, Liability of Custodiers
Contract Delict Tort Bailment Duty of Care Negligence Custody of Goods Standard of Care +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Forbes

Pursuer

Aberdeen Motors Ltd

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal (reclaiming Motion)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders, as custodiers of the pursuer's car, breached their duty of care by leaving it unlocked with the keys in the ignition in an unsupervised car park, resulting in its theft and destruction.
  2. 2 Whether the absence of an express instruction regarding the keys absolved the defenders from liability.

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders, as onerous custodiers, owed a duty to take reasonable care of the pursuer's car until it was safely delivered. Leaving the car unlocked with the keys in the ignition in an unsupervised car park was a breach of that duty, as no prudent person would have done so. The absence of express instructions regarding the keys did not absolve the defenders from this duty. Their negligence directly caused the loss, making them liable in damages.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; judgment for pursuer affirmed

Orders

  • Defenders to pay the pursuer £1775 in damages